M. Rathna vs Spl. Tahsildar, Anekal Tq.

The petitioner, who is the widow of a soldier who died, while he was engaged in operations for the defence of the country, has in this writ petition prayed for a writ of mandamus against the first respondent to take such steps as are necessary to evict respondents 2 to 5 from the lands bearing Sy No. 79/3 measuring 2 guntas; Sy. No. 64 measuring 24 guntas of Hasiruvani village and Sy. No. 115/2 of Sidihoskote measuring 1 acre and 8 guntas; and further to direct the first respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the said lands. The, petitioner made an application under Section 15 (4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, before the Special Tahsildar Anekal Taluk, praying that the respondents 2 to 5 be called upon to deliver possession of the lands in question to the petitioner within a specified time and in the event of their failure to do so, they be summarily evicted. On that application, notices were said to have been issued to respondents 2 to 5 and the order in that regard was passed on 17-8-1977 by an officer not being the Special Tahsildar but purporting to act for Special Tahsildar.

It is an undisputed fact that the order dated 17-8-1977 was not passed by the Special Tahsildar and the same was passed by an officer other than the Special Tahsildar purporting to act for the Special Tahsildar. Under Section 2(32A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the expression "Tahsildar" includes a Special Tahsildar empowered by the State Government to exercise all or any of the powers of the Tahsildar under the Act. The power under Section 15 of the Act is to be exercised by the Tahsildar and in view of the aforesaid definition of the word ''Tahsildar'' it can even be exercised by the Special Tahsildar empowered by the Stale Government in this behalf. Thus, the order in question having not been passed by the Tahsildar or by the Special Tahsildar enpowered in this behalf and the same having been passed by an officer not being the Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar empowered in this behalf, cannot be said to be a valid order. The statutory powers are to be exercised by the officer named in the statute and not by any other officer purporting to act for the officer named in the statute.

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus for enforcing the said order which as already stated is not a valid order. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the concerned Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar empowered in this behalf to take steps on the application made by her produced as Ext-B, and dispose, of the same in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition is dismissed.